Watch it at Amazon
76 out of 102 people found the following review useful: The Fabulous Jane Fonda And The Dog Walker, 30 January 2006 Author: arichmondfwc from United States
Everyone I know went to see "Monster In Law" for Jane Fonda and in spite of J Lo. If you go with that spirit, you just may have a reasonable good time. I hadn't realized how much I missed Jane Fonda and how wonderful she is, she was she will always be. The film in itself is just too terrible for words. A showdown between a possessive mother and a dog walker. The script is unbelievable bad and the aforementioned Jennifer Lopez is, poor thing, atrocious. She has the lightness of an elephant and the charm of a blank page but, look at the billing...Jennifer Lopez right on top, above Jane Fonda. Ridiculous isn't it? But that's what, I imagine, marketing people decide. What a shame. If I had been Miss Lopez, I would have used my power to demand that Jane Fonda's name should appear above mine. I know, I live in a fantasy world of respect and, if nothing else, good manners. The film may turn out to be useful as a teaching tool. To show both actresses together for a how to and how not to. I'm sure Jennifer Lopez must have been told by someone that she has to cultivate her craft. Her voice, goodness! A jarring, shrilling clash of tonsils and nasal sounds. Too late to play cute, virginal girls. A dog walker indeed!
52 out of 68 people found the following review useful: The Legend And The Temp, 15 May 2006 Author: wlawson60 from United States
I had such a thrill watching the unsinkable Jane Fonda making a wonderful fool of herself that I've actually saw it twice. The second time with my thumb on the fast forward. I've watched Jane's Viola interview that Brittany Spears clone many, many times. It's outrageously close to the knuckle and Fonda goes for it, body and soul. The problem resides elsewhere. I hope Jennifer Lopez has someone around her who can tell her the truth. She is so bad that the film can't recover from the heaviness of her romantic turns. She is the iceberg to this particular titanic. There is not a moment of sincerity in her entire performance and the fact that she is standing opposite one of the most truthful of actresses in the history of acting makes her appearance all the more jarring. Jane please, gives as more, Jennifer, go back to school.
49 out of 76 people found the following review useful: Hackneyed script sinks Fonda/Lopez film, 11 May 2005 Author: Cliff729 from Jacksonville, FL
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I can visualize the pitch meeting for "Monster-in-Law": "It's a female version of "Meet the Parents," with Jennifer Lopez as Ben Stiller and Jane Fonda as Robert DeNiro!" And since neither of its stars has been burning up the box office lately—Lopez hasn't had a big hit since The Wedding Planner, and Fonda's been off the big screen for 15 years--I can understand the appeal of a lightweight commercial vehicle. But did it have to be something THIS witless and unoriginal?Monster-in-Law's opening scenes play out the like the pilot for a bad sitcom. Within the first 20 minutes, we've seen Lopez, as Charlotte "Charlie" Cantilini, handle multiple odd-jobs (including dog-walker, isn't THAT quirky), toured her movie-set-funky apartment, and met her obligatory offbeat friends (including, yes, the gay neighbor who enters her place without knocking). And just when it seems impossible for screenwriter Anya Kochoff to stack the clichés any higher, Charlie has not one, not two, but three Meet Cutes with hunky doctor Kevin Fields (Michael Vartan).True love blooms, Kevin proposes, Charlie accepts.Enter Fonda as Kevin's mother Viola, a TV interviewer (think Barbara Walters on steroids) with problems of her own—in her first two scenes, she loses her job and has an on-camera meltdown while interviewing a Britney Spears-ish pop star. Presumably, this is to make Viola a tad sympathetic, a mother who has nothing going for her except her son, which makes her all the more neurotic at the prospect of "losing" him.But even by comedy standards, it takes a huge suspension of disbelief to think Viola's career is over—if Geraldo Rivera can work at network after network after all his gaffes, is there any doubt Viola would have a raft of job offers heading her way? And if Viola simply can't handle her son sharing his life with another woman, why does she keep trying to set him up with a catty former flame? (Lest the uber-Waspish Viola's campaign against Charlie be interpreted as racism, the filmmakers have cast Wanda Sykes as her assistant/confidante.)The movie clunks and thumps from one comic set piece to the next, punctuated by a ham-handed score by David Newman which underscores every punchline and hijink with cues more suitable for a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Vartan does what little he can with the film's most thankless role, but Kochoff's script makes Kevin little more than a MacGuffin with abs, a device to get the plot rolling and nothing else. By the end of the film, Kevin seems so utterly clueless, it's a wonder either of the women in his life want anything to do with him. Sykes fares a bit better—unlike Vartan, her character at least has an inkling of what's going on.The leading ladies certainly seem like good sports—Fonda plops her face into a plate of tripe, Lopez makes a joke about her much-discussed derriere—and every so often, they display enough star power to make us believe they're playing characters and not caricatures. The rest of the time, however, the actresses seem content to go through the motions and cash their checks. The stars—and their fans—deserve better than this.
33 out of 54 people found the following review useful: Monstrously lame, 16 October 2005 Author: pennshilvania from United States
As a fan of Jane Fonda's acting, I was mildly interested in seeing this movie, her first in many years. I wish now that I hadn't wasted my time.Granted, Jane Fonda is an asset to "Monster-in-Law." She brims with radiance and plays the Viola role with tremendous flair (although the psychosis of her character sometimes seems forced and exaggerated). My favorite scene, actually, is when she flies off the handle and tries to strangle a young singer whom she is interviewing on her talk show. There are a few moments where she effectively conveys the insecurity and desperation beneath Viola's nasty exterior. Nonetheless, even a brilliant actress cannot save a movie with such a weak script.Take, for instance, the first few scenes, when Charlie and Kevin meet (in a most whimsical fashion, may I add). This introduction seems too drawn-out and ultimately worthless to the plot. I found myself mentally tuning out for the sake of my sanity.Speaking of the two lovers, I'd be hard-pressed to name a more boring on-screen couple. J-Lo, as has been mentioned frequently on this site, comes across as too sweet and innocent and perfect throughout most of the movie. Simply put, she's annoying. I kept wishing they could have cast a more watchable actress. The Kevin character, also, has zero substance and is bland. He is like a prop that they casually drag into the movie whenever they need some filler between Charlie/Viola catfights.Wanda Sykes, as Viola's assistant, is fairly comical and works much better with Jane Fonda than J-Lo does. Viola's mother-in-law also delivers her lines in an entertainingly caustic way. However, these two women do not have much screen time at all."Monster-in-Law" progresses as a string of loosely connected arguments. The result is tedious and mundane. There is no climax, really. If you've seen one spat between Charlie and Viola, you've seen them all. They spew petty insults...they seek revenge on each other...they go on to the next scene and repeat it all over again. It might be juicy if it weren't so repetitive, and if a different actress were squaring off against Jane Fonda, and if the dialogue weren't quite so stale.The ending is literally an embarrassment. Oh, I won't give it away...except to say that I felt as if I were watching the end of a "Full House" episode. Yes folks, the music and lines are THAT corny and predictable. By the way, this is not a central plot point by any means, but Charlie's bridal gown is not particularly flattering. More like flattening. It makes her look as if she has no chest at all! Anyhow, I would not recommend this fluffy, somewhat empty movie, which hardly evoked a laugh or even a smile from me. If you still want to see it, go ahead, but definitely don't expect too much. I saw this movie just a couple of hours ago and have already forgotten about most of it. Not that I'm complaining.
6 out of 8 people found the following review useful: Not much of a story, we regretted spending time watching it., 17 October 2005 Author: TxMike from Houston, Tx, USA, Earth
Like many romantic comedies this one has a simple premise, only son plans to get married and controlling mom doesn't approve. The path that the script and direction take from that premise is rocky indeed. Jane Fonda is a good actress, but here she is such a parody of a character as Viola, the mom, I got tired quickly of watching her histrionics. It might have been more palatable if the movie had not spent do much time on her problems, and had focused more on the cute couple.Half of the cute couple is Kevin (Michael Vartan), the 30-something son and successful doctor. The other half is Charlie (Jennifer Lopez) who is working a wide variety of jobs to make ends meet -- dog walker, "temp", and caterer's assistant. Kevin and Charlie meet twice quite by accident over a couple of days, then they can't get each other out of their minds. MOST SPOILERS FOLLOW. Meanwhile Viola is being replaced as seasoned TV news anchor by a younger blonde, and Viola goes crazy during her final interview of a Britney-like young blonde, physically attacks her, and spends the next few months in a mental ward. On release, she finds out not only Kevin has a girlfriend, he proposes marriage to her in front of mom. The brunt of the movie is Viola trying to make Charlie crazy, doing many crazy things while staying with her for a week, then Charlie catching on and doing crazy things back. Finally, at the wedding, Viola has an epiphany, she is just afraid of losing her son, nothing personal against Charlie, they hug and make up, all is well. Too simple, too trite, not a very good movie. Wanda Sykes as Ruby, Viola's long time assistant, was the most enjoyable character in the movie.
22 out of 40 people found the following review useful: Enjoyable to watch as long as you don't take it too seriously, 13 May 2005 Author: christian123
Charlotte Honeywell (Jennifer Lopez) has had problems finding the perfect man until she starts dating Kevin (Michael Vartan). Thing are going well until she meets his overbearing mother (Jane Fonda), a recently fired news anchorwoman who takes her aggression out on her son's new girlfriend with help from her assistant Ruby (Wanda Sykes). But Charlotte is ready to fight back.The premise is rather old and it has been done to death recently. Shrek 2, Meet the Fockers, Guess Who and now this film. I still enjoy this type of comedy but this is the worse one of the previous four. However, Monster-in-Law is still an enjoyable movie. It doesn't offer anything memorable but it's pretty entertaining while it lasts. I'll admit the movie is highly unrealistic from the cruel stuff Fonda and Lopez do to each other to the nice home Lopez owns despite the fact that it looks way too expensive for her to own. Some of the cruel things they do to each other is pretty funny while other times it's just a bit too much. Luckily, there really isn't too much of this material since the movie is only 100 minutes long. So the film hardly gets boring and it ends before it wears out its welcome.The acting is alright, with a few performances really saving the movie. Jane Fonda gives a really funny performance as Charlotte. She does go over the top but her performance is still a lot of fun to watch on screen. Jennifer Lopez gives a bland performance, nothing special. Her chemistry with Fonda is weak and their scenes aren't as good as they could have been. Wanda Sykes offers a funny performance as Ruby. Her scenes with Jane Fonda are the best things about the movie though she gets a little annoying. Michael Vartan is kind of just there and he doesn't really do anything special.Robert Luketic directs and he does an okay job. He could have made the film a little more realistic and a little less sitcomish but the movie turned out okay. The audience I saw this with were really into it and they seemed to be enjoying themselves. Obviously, critics won't like this film but those looking for a nice comedy should check out this movie. It is a little mean spirited and predictable but this doesn't take away too much from the movie. In the end, Monster-in-Law is a good time passer, nothing more or less. Rating 7/10
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Jane Fonda...At Last!, 17 June 2006 Author: moviewizguy from United States
This film's plot has been used many times but this movie may be the funniest. It's about Charlotte. She has about four jobs. On a regular day, she meets a man that she likes. He tells her that she should meet his mother. She agrees but she's nervous. He purposes to her in front of his mother. Both are shocked but Charlotte says yes. Now his mother is so angry, she'll have to do whatever it takes for her to get rid of Charlotte because all she has is her son and Ruby, her assistant. The movie is hilarious and it's great to see Jane Fonda coming back! Wanda Sykes comedic performance is great, especially her physical comedy. Many lines are memorable including this one: "Viola, I think you have just dislocated my vagina!" Just funny thinking about it. This film is not all that bad as critics say. J-Lo's and Jane's performances was good. Although this plot has been used many times, this version might be the funniest. Wait... Meet the Parents might be the funniest. If you're looking for a feel good comedy or if you're a Jane Fonda fan, this movie will not disappoint you!
5 out of 7 people found the following review useful: Hmm..., 6 January 2007 Author: x-princess-domi-x from United Kingdom
I went to go see this film in the cinema with two of my friends...my two friends thought it was really good but to be honest i would of rather stayed at home and watch paint dry! I like Jennifer Lopez, i think she is a good actor/singer but i just do not think she was good in this film. I think it was more the plot of the film that sucked not her actual acting! Since watching this film i have not watched any other films with J-LO in it or any films directed by the same person. Yes this comment may come across a bit strong/mean but it is my own opinion and everyone is entitled to express their own. Im sure there is going to be people out there that disagree about my comment so i do apologise if there is but i'm also sure that there will be just as many people that agree with me then disagree!
10 out of 17 people found the following review useful: The title deserved a better film, 26 November 2005 Author: dromasca from Herzlya, Israel
The title of this film is the best thing in this movie. I would actually say that such a title deserved a better movie.'Monster in Law' is a combination between 'Maid in Manhattan' and 'Meet the Parents'. Jennifer Lopez is practically re-doing her role in 'Maid ..' and this is probably what she knows to play best, or the only thing she knows to play, I do not know. The problem is that this movie is made three years later, and the character is supposed to be ten years younger than in the New York located film. I also suspect that she cannot count on her looks for long, and even here a couple of jokes about her waist had to be inserted. What will she do with her career in the next years? Well, we'll see.Robert Luketic directed the original 'Legally Blonde' and had much better material to work from there. The main problem of this film is that the script is so predictable, the jokes so thin, and we must have seen the end in zillions of other movies. We do have Jane Fonda back on screen, but sincerely, I would expect her to do something else after 15 years of creativity break, and not this routine feel good comedy.I am afraid that this film - after making its in-flight entertainment career - will rest soon on the shelves of the studios full of not-so-funny comedies, and a well deserved amount of dust will cover it. Twenty years from now somebody will maybe take the idea and the title and make a better film of it.
25 out of 47 people found the following review useful: A real waste of time, 16 August 2005 Author: jon-berry-1 from Portugal
How Lo can you go?Cinemas in the Algarve region of Portugal have retained the custom of inserting an interval during the main feature. This is slightly annoying at times, but at others it provides a welcome break – time for a quick smoke and time to decide whether there is any point going back to see the second half of the film. The break is thus a wonderful opportunity to slip away quietly without having to climb all over the other members of the audience midway through the film.Sadly, I saw "Monster-in-Law" in Lisbon, where there was no such luxury, so I was forced to sit through the entire nine hours. OK, 90 minutes, but didn't Einstein say something about relativity …Admittedly, the film poster itself had sent up enough warning signals to discourage the "floating viewer": in the same way as you can be sure that any film starring Keanu Reeves will be drivel, you can count on anything featuring J-Lo being suspect at best. However, I have always found Wanda Sykes very funny, and Jane Fonda is usually worth a look.Within 10 minutes, I was wishing I'd gone to see Crash instead. Or anything. Or a blank wall.The "scene" is quickly set. J-Lo is the perfect, if a little quirky, woman, looking for the perfect man. Her friends – the obligatory gay man and slightly trashy girl – assure her that he is out there somewhere. Sure enough, he appears in the form of a perfect surgeon with a perfect physique, perfect teeth and perfect designer stubble ... Unfortunately, his mother (Jane Fonda) is a perfect harridan fresh off the back of a nervous breakdown – or so we are asked to believe.This is where the "fun" should start, with the general idea, I guess, being to make an "all-chick" version of "Meet the Parents". Why? Good question, and one to which I am still seeking an answer.The plot, such as it is, is transparently thin – there cannot surely be anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size who could not have predicted the ending (right down to the script) before the opening credits were over.The only element of interest that remained was to see what the cast could do within the framework they had been given. Not a lot, it seems. But to be fair, Trevor Nunn and the Royal Shakespeare Company couldn't have done anything with this turkey.The film limps from scene to scene with no sense of continuity or purpose, the only objective seems to be to reach the grand finale, which still manages to disappoint.Questions must be asked. Why did Jane Fonda end a 15-year break from the big screen to star in this nightmare? Did she lose a bet? In the same vein,why would Wanda Sykes debase her obvious talent to take on this quasi-Uncle Tom role? True, she was about the only person worth watching in the entire debacle, but she deserves a better vehicle than this.Sadly, J-Lo looked at home here, seeming very much at ease in an over-hyped production with no substance at all. Michael Vartan (the perfect man) manages to get away more-or-less unscathed, but only because his role is so peripheral that you can easily forget that he's there. I have a nagging suspicion that this film may not appear too prominently on his CV.As far as I can see, this is Anya Kochoff's first foray into the world of screen writing. May it be her last. Please.
Add another review
